Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

The implication behind this seems to be that maintaining the immaculate state of baptism is impossible and that sin is unavoidable. If something is unavoidable, how can it be a sin?

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

Now, on behalf of username! and the rest of the moderator team, I must ask that we work much harder to keep threads on topic so we don't have to clean up after any more of these train wrecks. Thank you.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

If the parents are not educated in the faith, and many are not, then their child(ren) could be in danger.I remember reading somewhere in a Catholic book, that many young children are condemned to hell.To have the magical age of 7 be declared universally as the "age of reason" is very unfortunate, as it gives the wrong impression that children cannot commit evil, when they do. Even our justice system considers children under 14 to be naive and incapable of murder.

Only in Orthodoxy have I seen Priests willing to hear the confession of children under seven.And this is only possible if the parents/godparents are willing to bring that child to the Holy Church, which is seen as a hospital for the sick.

And to bring this thread back on topic:

I have also heard Orthodox Priests say that all of us are born/conceived immaculate (free from personal sin), that the Original Sin only referred to the sin of Adam and Eve, and that we did not inherit that Original Sin, but only the consequences of that Original Sin, which is now referred to as the Ancestral Curse.

On the other hand, I have also heard some Orthodox Priests say that we do inherit Original Sin, which is forgiven at our Holy Baptism.

Thus, there is some divergence in this teaching as the Orthodox Church has apparently not defined nor dogmatized this area of teaching on Original Sin or the idea that the Theotokos was conceived with a special grace (Immaculate Conception).

« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 12:35:47 AM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

This is what I have heard as well, though I cannot remember where. It makes sense though. I'm sure God sees the intent and desire of the person to receive forgiveness and that that certainly counts for something.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

This is what I have heard as well, though I cannot remember where. It makes sense though. I'm sure God sees the intent and desire of the person to receive forgiveness and that that certainly counts for something.

Another example then of Catholicism's changing doctrines.

The doctrine used to be.... one could avoid hell after a mortal sin by

1, going to Confession with either perfect or imperfect contrition

2. if not able to go to Confession, then only a perfect act of contrition would bring God's forgiveness and escape from going to hell.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

This is what I have heard as well, though I cannot remember where. It makes sense though. I'm sure God sees the intent and desire of the person to receive forgiveness and that that certainly counts for something.

Another example then of Catholicism's changing doctrines.

The doctrine used to be.... one could avoid hell after a mortal sin by

1, going to Confession with either perfect or imperfect contrition

2. if not able to go to Confession, then only a perfect act of contrition would bring God's forgiveness and escape from going to hell.

It's not so much changing doctrine as it is the fact that, in any faith, there is the official on-the-books doctrine, and then there is what the faithful popularly believe. Those are the only two methods that the Church can guarantee will forgive a mortal sin, but the Church can't twist God's arm and tell Him that He can't forgive anyone He wishes any way that He wishes. It's good we have those rules in place since, in terms of salvation, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

This is what I have heard as well, though I cannot remember where. It makes sense though. I'm sure God sees the intent and desire of the person to receive forgiveness and that that certainly counts for something.

Another example then of Catholicism's changing doctrines.

The doctrine used to be.... one could avoid hell after a mortal sin by

1, going to Confession with either perfect or imperfect contrition

2. if not able to go to Confession, then only a perfect act of contrition would bring God's forgiveness and escape from going to hell.

It's not so much changing doctrine as it is the fact that, in any faith, there is the official on-the-books doctrine, and then there is what the faithful popularly believe. Those are the only two methods that the Church can guarantee will forgive a mortal sin, but the Church can't twist God's arm and tell Him that He can't forgive anyone He wishes any way that He wishes. It's good we have those rules in place since, in terms of salvation, it's better to be safe than sorry.

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

This is what I have heard as well, though I cannot remember where. It makes sense though. I'm sure God sees the intent and desire of the person to receive forgiveness and that that certainly counts for something.

Another example then of Catholicism's changing doctrines.

The doctrine used to be.... one could avoid hell after a mortal sin by

1, going to Confession with either perfect or imperfect contrition

2. if not able to go to Confession, then only a perfect act of contrition would bring God's forgiveness and escape from going to hell.

It's not so much changing doctrine as it is the fact that, in any faith, there is the official on-the-books doctrine, and then there is what the faithful popularly believe. Those are the only two methods that the Church can guarantee will forgive a mortal sin, but the Church can't twist God's arm and tell Him that He can't forgive anyone He wishes any way that He wishes. It's good we have those rules in place since, in terms of salvation, it's better to be safe than sorry.

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

On a more serious note, what makes you think that theological opinions of the past are more likely correct than what we now commonly believe?

Sometimes I wonder why the Immaculate Conception is so important to Catholics. Doesn't everyone enter the exact same sinless and immaculate state at the time of their baptism?

Briefly...until they commit their first post-baptismal sin. Although I would hardly consider myself to have ever been "full of grace" even a millisecond after my baptism.

Would those baptized at birth be in the same immaculate state as the Virgin Mary for the first 7 or so years of life -- until reason arrives and sins are commited?

People such as the Cure of Ars and the Little Flower, and Maria Goretti, may have been immaculate their entire lives.

Possibly...I don't really know. Is it not possible to sin before the age of reason? Even before the age of reason it is possible to grasp right and wrong to some degree, is it not? If I was told, at age five, not to eat any more candy because supper is almost ready and I go ahead and eat the candy, I understand that what I am doing is wrong.

Why would the Catholic Church deny confession and absolution if these young children were sinning....?

I was more asking than anything else. I don't really know. I know that the Catholic Church has the "age of reason" teaching in place, but I don't know all of the ins and outs of the teaching. It seems that children even before age seven have some grasp of right and wrong. If some other Catholic is in the know about this I would like to learn more as well.

The Roman Catholic Saint Therese of Liseaux wrote that she committed sins when she was about the age of three and repented with tears. So, she was not immaculate from her birth.

I have known Greek Orthodox Priests who have confessed children as young as three because these children admitted their sins and wanted to confess when asked by their parents and the priest.

That makes more sense to me. I would think that the age of reason would not be a set in stone age, but would vary based on the maturity of each individual child. I wonder how common this is in the Catholic Church to allow younger children to approach the Sacrament of Confession earlier if they show that they are mature enough?

I am uncertain about this as well, but I doubt a child would go to hell just because he was deemed not old enough to go to confession.

Yeah I wouldn't think so either. Even if a child does have the capacity to sin, how likely are they to mortally sin?

And, even if the child mortally sinned, and was repentant, I can't imagine God sending this child to hell because he was not allowed to confession. It seems that the child would receive the grace of the sacrament through "desire".

Would his salvation depend on whether he had made a *pefect* act of contrition?

Not even the most conservative priests I know interperate this in a legalistic fashion. In fact, I've asked what happens to some who doesn't make it to confession, but wants to, and whose contrition is imperfect. The orthodox Catholic priests that I have know suggest that, at worst, the person is on clean up crew in purgatory.

This is what I have heard as well, though I cannot remember where. It makes sense though. I'm sure God sees the intent and desire of the person to receive forgiveness and that that certainly counts for something.

Another example then of Catholicism's changing doctrines.

The doctrine used to be.... one could avoid hell after a mortal sin by

1, going to Confession with either perfect or imperfect contrition

2. if not able to go to Confession, then only a perfect act of contrition would bring God's forgiveness and escape from going to hell.

It's not so much changing doctrine as it is the fact that, in any faith, there is the official on-the-books doctrine, and then there is what the faithful popularly believe. Those are the only two methods that the Church can guarantee will forgive a mortal sin, but the Church can't twist God's arm and tell Him that He can't forgive anyone He wishes any way that He wishes. It's good we have those rules in place since, in terms of salvation, it's better to be safe than sorry.

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

Is that because you were once one of those earlier Catholics, Father.

Yes, we knew what the Church taught and what the faithful were expected to believe. The idea of deconstructing beliefs which the Church had taught for centuries was unthinkable. Not so these days. I have a theory as to how this disbelief and deconstruction became possible....

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

On a more serious note, what makes you think that theological opinions of the past are more likely correct than what we now commonly believe?

Take the recent change in the purgatory teaching.

People were taught for centuries, by Popes and bishops and priests, that purgatory is

A PLACE AND A STATE.

But come a couple of sunny lunchtimes in Rome and Pope John Paul says:

HEY! I THINK IT IS ONLY A STATE.

The crowds chew on their sandwiches and cheer and roar. The Pope's new opinion is even incorporated into his Catechism.

But it was all sleight of hand - no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.

He could equally well have said:

HEY! I THINK PURGATORY IS ONLY A PLACE.

So this thought of John Paul was arbitrary and NOT an official proclamation of Catholic teaching by a long shot, yet those who cheer for the revamped "state-only" version of Purgatory arrogantly desire to force their view onto the traditional "place and state" people. They pity the "place and state" people as still being fooled by centuries of erroneous Catholic teaching !!!

I fear that this unserious approach to doctrine and tradition bodes ill for the dialogue with the Orthodox who value the strong bond between doctrine and tradition very highly. We have clearly touched on a major point of division between us.

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

On a more serious note, what makes you think that theological opinions of the past are more likely correct than what we now commonly believe?

Take the recent change in the purgatory teaching.

People were taught for centuries, by Popes and bishops and priests, that purgatory is

A PLACE AND A STATE.

But come a couple of sunny lunchtimes in Rome and Pope John Paul says:

HEY! I THINK IT IS ONLY A STATE.

The crowds chew on their sandwiches and cheer and roar. The Pope's new opinion is even incorporated into his Catechism.

But it was all sleight of hand - no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.

He could equally well have said:

HEY! I THINK PURGATORY IS ONLY A PLACE.

So this thought of John Paul was arbitrary and NOT an official proclamation of Catholic teaching by a long shot, yet those who cheer for the revamped "state-only" version of Purgatory arrogantly desire to force their view onto the traditional "place and state" people. They pity the "place and state" people as still being fooled by centuries of erroneous Catholic teaching !!!

I fear that this unserious approach to doctrine and tradition bodes ill for the dialogue with the Orthodox who value the strong bond between doctrine and tradition very highly. We have clearly touched on a major point of division between us.

Well in this changing sea of beliefs ...

Perhaps soon, the Holy Father will declare (as do the Orthodox) that the Theotokos died and was assumed into Heaven instead of leaving people hanging on whether the Theotokos did not die but was assumed into heaven alive.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

So how do you know that your current opinion is right and all the Catholics have been wrong for centuries? I tend to think that earlier Catholics were more pious, more solid in their faith, and more knowledgeable about their faith.

On a more serious note, what makes you think that theological opinions of the past are more likely correct than what we now commonly believe?

Take the recent change in the purgatory teaching.

People were taught for centuries, by Popes and bishops and priests, that purgatory is

A PLACE AND A STATE.

But come a couple of sunny lunchtimes in Rome and Pope John Paul says:

HEY! I THINK IT IS ONLY A STATE.

The crowds chew on their sandwiches and cheer and roar. The Pope's new opinion is even incorporated into his Catechism.

But it was all sleight of hand - no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.

He could equally well have said:

HEY! I THINK PURGATORY IS ONLY A PLACE.

So this thought of John Paul was arbitrary and NOT an official proclamation of Catholic teaching by a long shot, yet those who cheer for the revamped "state-only" version of Purgatory arrogantly desire to force their view onto the traditional "place and state" people. They pity the "place and state" people as still being fooled by centuries of erroneous Catholic teaching !!!

I fear that this unserious approach to doctrine and tradition bodes ill for the dialogue with the Orthodox who value the strong bond between doctrine and tradition very highly. We have clearly touched on a major point of division between us.

Well considering that there is very little that Catholics are required to believe about purgatory, I would think that either belief would be acceptable.

Perhaps soon, the Holy Father will declare (as do the Orthodox) that the Theotokos died and was assumed into Heaven instead of leaving people hanging on whether the Theotokos did not die but was assumed into heaven alive.

It's hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption. The Pope says, at least five times, that the Mother of God DIED. Catholics can wriggle out of this and say the Pope has no idea what he is talking about. They will claim that only the very small paragraph where the Pope defines the Assumption is binding on them. As for the rest of the infallible document it is erroneous, the Pope is wrong. I personally find it hard to belioeve that any Catholic could claim that the Spirit protected the Pope from error over one small paragraph and yet allowed him to teach erroneously five times in the same magisterial document!!

It would, btw, be quite impossible for Eastern Catholics not to believe that the Mother of God died without doing an act of violence to their own sacred Tradition. The iconography, the hymnography and the oral Tradition all teach that she did in fact die.

People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die.

This is inaccurate. One only has to read the document to see that the Pope teaches that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

and

"As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."

and

"They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.."

and

"she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb.."

and

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"

These quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

So there we are.... There is the "magisterial document" proclaiming that she died.